2016 (12) TMI 1022 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - failure to call for documents - independent application of mind - Held that - if the respondents/Assessing Officers was of the opinion that documents are required to be produced, then the dealer can be directed to appear in person and produce the documents and this will avoid unnecessary litigation and also will ensure prompt collection of correct rate and quantum of tax - the petitioner is directed to file objections under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax for rectification of the assessment in which the petitioner is entitled to raise all contentions and produce the documents and that application will be filed within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondents shall consider the same and pass orders within a period of two weeks. Petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders for multiple years.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged assessment orders for nine consecutive years, arguing that the assessing authority failed to call for production of books of accounts before initiating revision proceedings, indicating a pre-determined mindset to confirm proposals from the Enforcement Wing. The petitioner contended that the authority wrongly relied on a statement obtained during inspection, which should not be considered final, and failed to acknowledge that freight charges were already included in purchase invoices. Additionally, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to produce documents or present their objections before the orders were passed.

The court acknowledged the need for proper documentation and directed the petitioner to file objections for rectification of the assessment under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the dealer to produce necessary documents to avoid unnecessary litigation and ensure the correct collection of tax. While the court declined to set aside the impugned orders, it provided a remedy for the petitioner by granting the opportunity to raise all contentions and submit documents within a specified timeframe. The court also instructed the respondents to consider the objections and pass orders promptly after conducting a personal hearing.

As a result of the court's direction, coercive action to recover tax based on the impugned assessment orders was stayed, and the orders were to be kept in abeyance. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, providing a resolution to the petitioner's concerns regarding the assessment orders for the specified years.